LETTERS: BOND'S RECORD AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO SEE

To the editor:

It is with little surprise that Missourians greet the newsflash that our resolute campaigner for term limits, Kit Bond, is seeking yet another term in the U.S. Senate.

One benefit of having an incumbent seek re-election is that we can see through the campaign rhetoric and can see what he or she really stands for. We can judge the record. It would seem that to support Kit Bond, one must also be an advocate of his war on human health and the environment. In particular, one must endorse corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer subsidies to timber companies for building logging roads in public forests, to mining companies for operating virtually free on federal lands and to large corporate livestock producers at the expense of small family farms.

From a conservation point of view, one must support the extinction of endangered species, and the continued destruction of wetlands at the hands of real estate development projects. From the point of view of human health issues, a Bond supporter must endorse the shipment of radioactive waste through major population centers, favor the reduction of human protection from toxic chemicals and microbial health risks and agree with allowing industry to avoid listing hazardous chemicals in their toxic release inventories. A Bond supporter must also wish to paralyze or destroy the EPA, the agency that protects human health from polluted water and air, and, finally, must support allowing agribusiness to deny minimum health and safety standards for farm workers.

For those who view short-term economic gain as the criterion for selecting a Senate candidate, Kit Bond seems an ideal choice. For those who think humans exist to serve the economy, rather than the reverse, Kit Bond may be the candidate. For those who would sacrifice human and environmental health on the altar of immediate economic gratification, Kit Bond may be the choice. However, for those who recognize that the quality of our lives and our long-term economic future are both inextricably linked to the ecosystem services provided by a healthy environment, some other candidate is required. Let us hope that Missourians have a better candidate than this and that they realize fully the choice they will be making in the coming election cycle.

Voters must make the choice. Time and again public opinions polls suggest Missourians favor strong protection of human and environmental health. Yet again and again these same voters go to the ballot box to elect candidates with public records that clearly reveal them to be enemies of both human and environmental health. It is long past time to end this pattern. If anyone wishes further information on those specific actions of corporate Sen. Kit Bond that substantiate this interpretation of his positions, I would be glad to furnish them. Fortunately, they are a matter of public record. ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau